AE, AF and AN v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 2

Court: House of Lords

Facts: The appellants, AE, AF, and AN, were subjected to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, imposed by the Home Secretary under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. In a conjoined appeal, the appellants argued that their rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)—which protects the right to a fair hearing—had been violated due to the closed material procedure used to impose the control orders, where some or all materials of their cases were withheld for national security reasons.

Issue: Did the closed material procedure result in a breach of the appellants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6?

Held: Appeals allowed. The House of Lords found that Article 6 imposes an absolute requirement for individuals subject to control orders to be given sufficient information to effectively challenge the case against them. Each case was remitted to the High Court for further consideration.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Phillips: "Non-disclosure cannot go so far as to deny a party knowledge of the case against him, at least where he is at risk of consequences as severe as those normally imposed under a control order." Lord Hoffmann: Expressed disagreement with the decision in A v United Kingdom, arguing that it could undermine the control order system but acknowledged that UK courts are bound to follow the Strasbourg court's interpretations. Lord Rodger: Emphasized that the UK courts have no choice but to accept the decisions of the ECtHR: “Argentoratum locutum, iudicium finitum – Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed.”

💡Leveluplaw: reinforces the principle that individuals must have adequate knowledge of the case against them, especially in serious matters like control orders that can significantly impact their rights and freedoms. The differing opinions among the Lords highlight the tension between national security interests and individual rights, while also affirming the obligation of UK courts to adhere to Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves, illustrating the complexities in balancing these competing interests within the framework of human rights law.